TOXICITY AND TREATMENT OUTCOME OF ACCELERATED FRACTIONATION RADIOTHERAPY VERSUS CONVENTIONAL FRACTIONATED CONCOMITANT CHEMORADIATION IN LOCALLY ADVANCED CERVICAL CARCINOMA: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2022.v15i8.45120Keywords:
Accelerated fractionation, Chemoradiation, Cervical cancerAbstract
Objectives: The benefit of concurrent chemoradiation is often not achievable due to poor tolerance due to increased toxicity, which is a common problem in our setting, where a significant portion of carcinoma cervix patients presents at an elderly age, with medical comorbidities, and with poor performance status. In addition, many patients refuse chemotherapy. Accelerated radiation therapy remains one of the possible alternatives there. Hence, we would like to perform a prospective study to compare treatment results between Pure Accelerated Radiation versus Concomitant Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Cervix.
Methods: After the initial investigative work, a total of 62 histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma of cervix locally advanced stage (FIGO-stage IB2 to IVA.) with ECOG performance status 0–2 patients were randomized into two arms: Arm A (Study arm, n=30) – Patients received Six fractions per week of External Beam Radiotherapy without chemotherapy and Arm B (Control arm, n=32) patients received concurrent chemoradiation with Five fractions per week of radiation with Weekly Injection of Cisplatin at the dose of 40 mg/m2.
Results: Overall response rates between the two arms were similar and statistically not significant (p=0.352). All acute late toxicities are similar in both arms except acute renal toxicity which is more in the control arm and the difference is statistically significant (p=0.005).
Conclusions: In developing countries like India with limited treatment facilities, pure accelerated RT with brachytherapy, without concurrent chemotherapy, may be a good option and it can be viewed as an equally effective option for the elderly patients, the patients who refuse, those who have contraindications for chemotherapy, or have comorbidities. Further, multicenter, controlled, and Phase III trials will be needed to prove the benefit of the shortening overall treatment time and compare the efficacy with chemoradiation.
Downloads
References
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492, PMID 30207593
Biswas L, Bera A, Manna D, Mondal S. Epidemiology of cervical cancer: A retrospective study in the tertiary health-care center in Kolkata over one decade. Int J Med Sci Public Health 2019;8:971-4.
Morris M, Eifel PJ, Lu J, Grigsby PW, Levenback C, Stevens RE, et al. Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1137-43. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199904153401501, PMID 10202164
Rose PG, Bundy BN, Watkins EB, Thigpen JT, Deppe G, Maiman MA, et al. Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1144-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199904153401502, PMID 10202165
Keys HM, Bundy BN, Stehman FB, Muderspach LI, Chafe WE, Suggs CL, et al. Cisplatin, radiation, and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1154-61. doi: 10.1056/ NEJM199904153401503, PMID 10202166
Peters WA, Liu PY, Barrett RJ, Stock RJ, Monk BJ, Berek JS, et al. Concurrent chemotherapy, and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:1606-13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.8.1606, PMID 10764420
Pearcey R, Brundage M, Drouin P, Jeffrey J, Johnston D, Lukka H, et al. Phase III trial comparing radical radiotherapy with and without cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:966-72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.4.966, PMID 11844818
Perez CA, Kavanagh BD. Uterine cervix. In: Edward CH, Perez Carlos A, Brady LW, editors. Perez, and Brady’s Principles and Practice of Radiation Oncology. 5th ed., Ch. 66. United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
The National Cancer Institute Clinical Announcement on Cervical Cancer. Available from: http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/ cervicalcancer [Last accessed on 2021 Aug 14].
Green JA, Kirwan JM, Tierney JF, Symonds P, Fresco L, Collingwood M, et al. Survival and recurrence after concomitant chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer of the uterine cervix: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2001;358:781-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140- 6736(01)05965-7, PMID 11564482
Basu A, Ghosh K, Basu A. Concomitant chemoradiation versus accelerated radiotherapy in selected cases of locally advanced carcinoma cervix-a prospective study. IOSR JDMS 2014;13:4-11. doi: 10.9790/0853-131250411
Sharma M, Revannasiddaiah S, Gupta M, Seam RK, Gupta MK, Rastogi M. Can pure accelerated radiotherapy given as six fractions weekly be an option in locally advanced carcinoma cervix: Results of a prospective randomized phase III trial. J Can Res Ther 2016;12:103-8. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.148676, PMID 27072219
Roy C, Choudhury KB, Pal M, Chowdhury K, Ghosh A. Pure accelerated radiation versus concomitant chemoradiation in selected cases of locally advanced carcinoma cervix: A prospective study. J Obstet Gynecol India 2012;62:679-86. doi: 10.1007/s13224-012- 0250-9, PMID 24293847
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 DR SHARMISTHA DARIPA , DR. SAPTARSHI BANERJEE, DR APARAJITA SADHYA, DR. ANJAN BERA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
